World Bank lowers Thai growth projection

[webfact]

World Bank lowers Thai growth projection
By Digital Content



BANGKOK, Oct 6 -- The World Bank lowered it's economic growth rate projection for Thailand this year at 1.5 per cent lower than its earlier 3 per cent forecast despite the economic recovery registered in the second half of this year.

Ulrich Zachau, World Bank Country Director for South East Asia, said that the expected economic growth rate was reduced from 3 per cent to 1.5 per cent although the gross domestic product would rise 3 per cent in the second half of this year.

He said that the value of Thai exports would grow by 0.7 per cent, domestic demand would increase 1 per cent and investment in the private sector would expand by 1.5 per cent.

Kirida Bhaopichtir, Senior Economist with the World Bank's Bangkok Office, said that the economic growth next year would be 3.5 per cent instead of 4.5 per cent as exports will increase by 6.4 per cent, and government investment will rise by 10 per cent, and household consumption would rise 1.5 per cent.

She said that household debt would continue to limit economic growth and the public would remain uncertain about their future incomes.

Ms Kirida said the government’s economic stimulus measures and Bt40 billion financial aid for farmers would inject a cash equivalent to about 1.4 per cent of the gross domestic product.

It will stimulate national economic performance in the short term, she said. The money will mainly come from government budgets. She advised that concerned parties monitor how the government can implement its projects. (MCOT online news)


-- TNA 2014-10-06

[Mango Bob]

It seems the country was doing better under YL than it is right now.

[chiang mai]

There are two problems, the first is the lagged time effect and the second is the state of the global economy - export markets are hurting and the effect of the YL's populist policies are only now being felt. So no, things were not better before.

[smutcakes]

There are two problems, the first is the lagged time effect and the second is the state of the global economy - export markets are hurting and the effect of the YL's populist policies are only now being felt. So no, things were not better before.

So given the two problems why is the Junta chucking money around willy nilly (populist) to get the economy moving?

[chainarong]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

There are two problems, the first is the lagged time effect and the second is the state of the global economy - export markets are hurting and the effect of the YL's populist policies are only now being felt. So no, things were not better before.

Plus things are not looking good in some other countries, although the US is slowly winding up again, so they tell us.

[Anthony5]

There are two problems, the first is the lagged time effect and the second is the state of the global economy - export markets are hurting and the effect of the YL's populist policies are only now being felt. So no, things were not better before.

But those two problems were very well known, and known not to go away in the near future, so why announce those false happiness predictions when anyone with half a braincell knew they not gone reach the predictions by far.

[chiang mai]

There are two problems, the first is the lagged time effect and the second is the state of the global economy - export markets are hurting and the effect of the YL's populist policies are only now being felt. So no, things were not better before.

So given the two problems why is the Junta chucking money around willy nilly (populist) to get the economy moving?

Public spending on infrastructure puts money into the economy and increases GDP, western countries do exactly the same thing, the UK does it by inflating property prices.

EDIT: populist spending is not the same as infrastructure spending, the former caters to a particular sector, the latter benefits all.

Edited October 6, 2014 by chiang mai

[chiang mai]

There are two problems, the first is the lagged time effect and the second is the state of the global economy - export markets are hurting and the effect of the YL's populist policies are only now being felt. So no, things were not better before.

But those two problems were very well known, and known not to go away in the near future, so why announce those false happiness predictions when anyone with half a braincell knew they not gone reach the predictions by far.

It's all well and good to say those things with the benefit of hindsight but six months ago most forecaster were predicting better results from the majors, particularly China and especially the EU, the latter being now in serious decline compared to the Spring.

[Anthony5]

There are two problems, the first is the lagged time effect and the second is the state of the global economy - export markets are hurting and the effect of the YL's populist policies are only now being felt. So no, things were not better before.

But those two problems were very well known, and known not to go away in the near future, so why announce those false happiness predictions when anyone with half a braincell knew they not gone reach the predictions by far.

It's all well and good to say those things with the benefit of hindsight but six months ago most forecaster were predicting better results from the majors, particularly China and especially the EU, the latter being now in serious decline compared to the Spring.

I guess I must look for a job as financial adviser then because I knew six months ago, and so did most people I communicate with, and I still know that the troubles in EU and US are far from over.

And that the real problems in China are still been covered up, but lets see how long that can continue.

We aint seen nothin yet.

[smutcakes]

There are two problems, the first is the lagged time effect and the second is the state of the global economy - export markets are hurting and the effect of the YL's populist policies are only now being felt. So no, things were not better before.

So given the two problems why is the Junta chucking money around willy nilly (populist) to get the economy moving?

Public spending on infrastructure puts money into the economy and increases GDP, western countries do exactly the same thing, the UK does it by inflating property prices.

EDIT: populist spending is not the same as infrastructure spending, the former caters to a particular sector, the latter benefits all.

So the 40bn handout to the rice farmers? populist?

[chiang mai]

There are two problems, the first is the lagged time effect and the second is the state of the global economy - export markets are hurting and the effect of the YL's populist policies are only now being felt. So no, things were not better before.

So given the two problems why is the Junta chucking money around willy nilly (populist) to get the economy moving?

Public spending on infrastructure puts money into the economy and increases GDP, western countries do exactly the same thing, the UK does it by inflating property prices.

EDIT: populist spending is not the same as infrastructure spending, the former caters to a particular sector, the latter benefits all.

So the 40bn handout to the rice farmers? populist?

Yes, it's primary purpose was to buy votes in a particular segment of Thai society.

[Anthony5]

So given the two problems why is the Junta chucking money around willy nilly (populist) to get the economy moving?

Public spending on infrastructure puts money into the economy and increases GDP, western countries do exactly the same thing, the UK does it by inflating property prices.

EDIT: populist spending is not the same as infrastructure spending, the former caters to a particular sector, the latter benefits all.

So the 40bn handout to the rice farmers? populist?

Yes, it's primary purpose was to buy votes in a particular segment of Thai society.

It will be a very long time before that segment will have a chance to cast a vote again, so why hand them money?

Edited October 6, 2014 by Anthony5

[chiang mai]

So the 40bn handout to the rice farmers? populist?

Yes, it's primary purpose was to buy votes in a particular segment of Thai society.

It will be a very long time before that segment will have a chance to cast a vote again, so why hand them money?

We're talking about two different things:

The wholesale rice purchase scheme that cost the country hundreds of billions was a vote buying scheme. Recent incentives comprised a wind down of that operation, you can't simple stop that scale of support overnight for a number of reasons, votes, civil unrest and humanity are three of them.

[mommysboy]

Handouts/incentives/schemes to aid certain sectors, call them what you will, they are all beneficial providing the money is spent in the country and not hoarded. In this respect benefits to the poor are surely best as in theory they are small amounts of money structured to go directly in to the hands of the desired recipient., As these people invariably spend every last penny very quickly, this generates income to others, who then go on to spend.

I think it is a bit erroneous to say the colossal amount spent on the rice scheme was wasted, presumably the money went somewhere and possibly got spent. Obviously it could have been spent better. But then there is the moral issue! Some would argue money should go to those prepared to work hard and generate wealth. Farmers are the obvious target as they provide work for labourers, as well as producing exports.

[fish fingers]

Yingluck's tenure is like going to a bar with naughty mates. The bill comes at the the end of the night and everyone does a runner

Prayuth's tenure is the dude with machete blocking the way out

[sawadee1947]

It seems the country was doing better under YL than it is right now.

yes, corruption creates income and profit. And this was made for investments = growth!

[sawadee1947]

There are two problems, the first is the lagged time effect and the second is the state of the global economy - export markets are hurting and the effect of the YL's populist policies are only now being felt. So no, things were not better before.

So given the two problems why is the Junta chucking money around willy nilly (populist) to get the economy moving?

Public spending on infrastructure puts money into the economy and increases GDP, western countries do exactly the same thing, the UK does it by inflating property prices.

EDIT: populist spending is not the same as infrastructure spending, the former caters to a particular sector, the latter benefits all.

So the 40bn handout to the rice farmers? populist?

so the government learnt from YL ??? Amazing...

[Thai at Heart]

There are two problems, the first is the lagged time effect and the second is the state of the global economy - export markets are hurting and the effect of the YL's populist policies are only now being felt. So no, things were not better before.

So given the two problems why is the Junta chucking money around willy nilly (populist) to get the economy moving?

Public spending on infrastructure puts money into the economy and increases GDP, western countries do exactly the same thing, the UK does it by inflating property prices.

EDIT: populist spending is not the same as infrastructure spending, the former caters to a particular sector, the latter benefits all.

Like subsidies for rice farmers being provided by both parties then? Yes, public spending boosts GDP. Call one populist and other infrastructure. Yingluck had a massive infrastructure program too. The junta stopped it, repackaged it and has one too.

I fail to see the massive difference between these two situations.

[Thai at Heart]

Handouts/incentives/schemes to aid certain sectors, call them what you will, they are all beneficial providing the money is spent in the country and not hoarded. In this respect benefits to the poor are surely best as in theory they are small amounts of money structured to go directly in to the hands of the desired recipient., As these people invariably spend every last penny very quickly, this generates income to others, who then go on to spend.

I think it is a bit erroneous to say the colossal amount spent on the rice scheme was wasted, presumably the money went somewhere and possibly got spent. Obviously it could have been spent better. But then there is the moral issue! Some would argue money should go to those prepared to work hard and generate wealth. Farmers are the obvious target as they provide work for labourers, as well as producing exports.

It went into the economy.

[rickirs]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

There are two problems, the first is the lagged time effect and the second is the state of the global economy - export markets are hurting and the effect of the YL's populist policies are only now being felt. So no, things were not better before.

So given the two problems why is the Junta chucking money around willy nilly (populist) to get the economy moving?

Public spending on infrastructure puts money into the economy and increases GDP, western countries do exactly the same thing, the UK does it by inflating property prices.

EDIT: populist spending is not the same as infrastructure spending, the former caters to a particular sector, the latter benefits all.

"caters to a particular sector"

You mean like the new government subsidies for BOTH the rice and rubber farmers so that they get guaranteed crop prices even when the market price is less? And this is on top of the Junta's borrowing funds now over 10 years to payoff the rice farmers for the rice pledge program purchases. If the Junta doesn't care about politics, why is it so concerned about keeping diverse portions of the population happy by shoveling out money?

[chiang mai]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

There are two problems, the first is the lagged time effect and the second is the state of the global economy - export markets are hurting and the effect of the YL's populist policies are only now being felt. So no, things were not better before.

So given the two problems why is the Junta chucking money around willy nilly (populist) to get the economy moving?

Public spending on infrastructure puts money into the economy and increases GDP, western countries do exactly the same thing, the UK does it by inflating property prices.

EDIT: populist spending is not the same as infrastructure spending, the former caters to a particular sector, the latter benefits all.

"caters to a particular sector"

You mean like the new government subsidies for BOTH the rice and rubber farmers so that they get guaranteed crop prices even when the market price is less? And this is on top of the Junta's borrowing funds now over 10 years to payoff the rice farmers for the rice pledge program purchases. If the Junta doesn't care about politics, why is it so concerned about keeping diverse portions of the population happy by shoveling out money?

Reading the link below will help you better understand the picture, two excerpts follow:

"His government has no need to use populist policies because it doesn’t need to pander to voters", and,

“Populist policies, we have to forget about it,” as they’re not sustainable, Finance Minister Sommai Phasee said in an interview last week. “But we still have to spend money, especially for the farmers. We can’t ignore farmers. But the mechanism is something else that we have to be careful. We have to come up with a very effective one.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-24/fearless-farmers-bring-fight-to-test-thai-junta-southeast-asia.html